Zimmerman did not. There were something like eight burglaries and a shooting in his community in the previous fourteen months. That’s why they set up the neighborhood watch.
Regards,
Shodan
I assume that the kind of person who wants to join an armed patrol is both deeply fearful and gripped by a sense of insignificance. The patrols would be a way for them to get some sense of adequacy in their lives. If they really wanted to help out they’d volunteer at a local shelter or read to the elderly instead of strapping on their fake dicks and harassing people who don’t look like they belong.
[quote=“Shodan, post:77, topic:663401”]
[ul][li]Martin was already home. However, he chose to return and hunt Zimmerman out - not vice versa.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Well, now, this is an interesting point. The encounter took place rather close to the back door of the Martins’ residence. In other words, Zimmerman was following Martin home, in the dark, in a paranoid neighborhood. One could easily infer that Martin was standing his own ground, defending himself from a suspicious stalker. So what if he “instigated” the encounter? There was really nothing abnormal about his behavior, at least in a state that advocates “standing one’s ground”.
For some reason, Martin wasn’t allowed to stand his ground, but Zimmerman was. Hmmm, I wonder what could be different between these two people?
Also, all these defenders of Zimmerman saying that he did nothing to provoke the incident by following Martin are exactly the kind of people who freak out if someone parks in front of their house. I can’t imagine how they’d react if they started being followed around by someone.
But that wouldn’t be as much fun for them.
Martin was allowed to stand his ground, as was Zimmerman. It’s not mutually exclusive, they could both have been legitimately defending themselves.
And now, a murder. Very effective.
Really? Who was murdered? I heard one of the neighbourhood watchmen defended himself against a serious attack, but nothing about a murder.
So if Martin had won the fight and killed Zimmerman, that would have been ok for you? Basically, it’s just trial by combat and who ever wins stood his ground?
Uh huh.
I expect that it’d be impossible to prove he was guilty of murder, or any other crime. I’d be ok with that and would expect (in an ideal world) that, if there was no more evidence against him that Zimmerman, that there wouldn’t be a trial.
Of course, we’re not in that world, and it’s pretty likely that wouldn’t happen. That wouldn’t make it right, but the possibility that Martin’s race would make it unlikely the courts would treat him correctly is not an argument against treating Zimmerman fairly.
I voted against armed patrols, though I might feel differently if I lived elsewhere.
As it is, I live in a fairly safe middle class neighborhood, and the Austin Police Department has a pretty quick response time (I’ve only had to call them twice in 27 years, and they were at my door within 2 minutes both times).
So, in my neighborhood, a team of armed George Zimmerman-esque cop wannabes could ONLY make things worse.
If I ever saw a supicious looking character cruising through my neighborhood, I feel pretty confident that I could call the police, and they’d have professionals on the scene within minutes to check him out. For my money, that’s WAAAY better than nervous amateurs with guns creating unnecessary confrontations.
Attempted murder. Fortunately yes, the neighborhood watch was able to stop it from becoming a real murder.
Regards,
Shodan
Attempted, and succeeded.
No, Zimmerman is still alive. Due to, fortunately, being armed and able to stop his attacker.
People who think that anyone should just lay back and take a beating for no reason sicken me. They have every right to defend themselves with whatever force is appropriate. When you’re on your back being bashed into concrete, any level of force is appropriate.
The arguments here have finally persuaded me I’d be safer with armed patrols. I need protecting from idiot liberals who think that thugs who go around beating people up have more rights than their victims.
That’s because you, like most conservatives, live in fear: fear of blacks, fear of ideas, fear of secretly being turned gay. You need your big hard gun to make all the fear go away.
You’re doing the thing where you keep repeating a catchphrase (“liberals think it’s ok to beat people up without provocation”) in lieu of actually participating in a rational discussion.
I mean, maybe you were already aware of that, but just in case I thought I’d point it out. When debates devolve into the catchphrase stage, I find they have generally run their course. Ymmv.
Edit: to be honest, “all conservatives live in fear” isn’t much better. Come on now.
Zimmerman was just enjoying a nightly constitutional when Martin leapt out of the bushes at his head, did he?
Which is sad, because that means they relate to a pathological lying psychopath.